Parking Eye summons

4consumerrights

namregd wrote: »

Hi guys

Can anyone definitively answer the question as to whether I should have received photos etc from PE before I received the Claim Form? At the moment I don't even know the date on which this alleged contravention is supposed to have occurred. I read a post on pepipoo last night that suggests that I should have received photographic evidence, including presumably the date of the contravention, before receiving the Claim Form.

It transpires that the event my daughter had to attend at Waitrose was in August, so can't be the date on which this contravention occurred. Now I can't think for the life of me what I would have been doing in that car park for that length of time.

The claim form from Northampton should give a brief summary and state the date of the alleged contravention. Photographic evidence should have been provided with the first Notice to Keeper.

Parking Eye's LBCs are definitely not compliant with practice direction unless they have suddenly upgraded their formatted computer letters. - challenge here the £50 legal fees

Go with Coupon's response in post #41 above

and make sure that you put in your defence you want to see the original contract that parking eye have with the landowner (certain parts can be redacted but the judge to see full contract).

Background info and Sections 21 and 22 of Parking Eye's standard terms and conditions of their contract with their client (landowner) are the relevant here proving no proprietary interest and their relationship as managing agents.

BACKGROUND
A ParkingEye has agreed to supply, and the Customer has agreed to accept Services
and associated Products (as defined below)in return for the Charges
in relation tocar park management at the Site(s)
.
B The Customer being the landowner of the Site(s)(or as agent for the landowner
and having the prerequisite authority to bind the landowner) wishes to authorise
ParkingEye to act as its appointed car park operator on the terms and conditions set
out in this Agreement and in accordance with the BPA Approved Operator Scheme
Code of Practiceas amended from time to time
.

22.NO PARTNERSHIP OR AGENCY
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create a partnership or joint venture orlegal relationship of any kind that would impose liability upon one Party for the actor failure to act of the other Party between the Parties, or to authorise either Partyto act as agent for the other. Save as expressly provided in this Agreement, neither Party shall have authority to make representations, act in the name or on behalf of or otherwise to bind the other.
23.NO LANDLORD AND TENANT
ParkingEye and the Customer agree that no relationship of landlord and tenant asdefined under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is intended or deemed to be created in relation to the operation of this Agreement at any Site nor shall theprovisions of this Agreement be deemed to create in favour of ParkingEye any leaseof, or similar interest in, the land in which the Products are situated

namregd

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It could even have been a double visit couldn't it? Popping there for something then popping back later for a forgotten item? Known as a double dip on this forum (and something that happens a lot with ANPR-generated private invoices, PE included). The camera shots show the first arrival and last time of leaving. Could be that.

I think this is a very real possibility CM. The only time I ever go anywhere near this car park is to drop my daughter off at work and then pick her up later. Once I've established the times and date of the alleged contravention, if that's the case it should be a relatively simple matter to prove, and then I'll hit them with my expenses big time.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can say you honestly believe PE didn't send the first letter in time which is why you never took it seriously (as registered keeper you were not liable in law as PE had not issued a POFA compliant Notice). Nor was it clear about your right to appeal to POPLA, nor did it identify the creditor (a POFA2012 requirement) and nor did it state the fact that genuine customers are exempt from these charges. It now appears all of this could have been resolved if PE had said clearly that a receipt at the time would have got it cancelled, or if they had made the appeal to POPLA clearer at the outset. POPLA was new and unknown in 2012 and PE should have made the process very clear in any letter; they did not and then never sent any further letters.

Say that your chances to defend this have been fettered because their particulars now have been served out of the blue, and include no evidence, no photos and not even the date of the event. And they never sent you a Letter before Claim*...

Not sure about this. I can remember receiving correspondence, the usual threatening letters stuff, although I certainly didn't receive any photographic evidence. I can remember the name of the car park in the letters and, because I had never heard of it and never go anywhere near the place, I thought it was referring to an area closer to home that I had parked in to attend a Christmas event shortly before receiving the first letter. I was legally parked on that occasion and therefore ignored that letter and all subsequent correspondence. That correspondence may well have included a POPLA code which again I ignored because I was convinced I had no case to answer, so to speak. So suggesting they haven't complied with the procedures when they may well have done so may reflect badly on my defence.

4consumerrights wrote: »

The claim form from Northampton should give a brief summary and state the date of the alleged contravention.

It doesn't - see my post #29 and CM's response #30.

Photographic evidence should have been provided with the first Notice to Keeper.

Definitely didn't receive this - I would remember photographs. All I received was letters.

The date of this alleged contravention will be key to my defence. Someone suggested somewhere that I ring the court and state that I haven't received any photographic evidence, but surely that's up to PE? Should I ring PE on the number shown on the Claim Form (under PE's address) and ask for copies? Can anyone think of any reason why this might be a bad idea? I'll simply ask for copies of previous correspondence and the photographic evidence - I won't be discussing the alleged contravention.

Thanks for the help guys

Umkomaas

Advice is not to contact PPCs by telephone as there's no record (should it be needed as evidence in the future) and calls rarely deliver what you are seeking. Telephone access is often on premium rate numbers, costing you a lot as well as you making a financial contribution to your persecutors.

All best done in writing.

namregd

Umkomaas wrote: »

Advice is not to contact PPCs by telephone as there's no record (should it be needed as evidence in the future) and calls rarely deliver what you are seeking. Telephone access is often on premium rate numbers, costing you a lot as well as you making a financial contribution to your persecutors.

All best done in writing.

Makes sense. Thanks

Coupon-mad

namregd wrote: »

Definitely didn't receive this - I would remember photographs. All I received was letters.

You almost certainly did, because the first letter from PE ALWAYS has photos at the top (not as a separate attachment of course, not some snaps).

namregd wrote: »

So suggesting they haven't complied with the procedures when they may well have done so may reflect badly on my defence.

Suggesting they didn't send a LBA 'might be' slightly dodgy if you think perhaps they did, but that doesn't mean you don't mention any of the rest of the stuff about flaws in their procedure! E.g. we know for a fact they DID NOT identify the creditor in 2012 NTK letters, we know they DID NOT make it clear about POPLA (hidden in the small print on the back isn't clear), they MAY NOT have sent the NTK within 14 days was they only tightened their deadlines in Spring 2013.

They MAY WELL NOT have a contract for the date of the parking event and in any case you can state in your defence summary that their claim should be 'struck out' as they haven't actually established a cause of action. Mentioning the date of a letter is not stating the cause of action for a dated parking 'contravention'. You can also push for POPLA, of course, as the bespoke ADR to save the court's valuable time (it's actually never too late for POPLA, any PPC who says it is, lies, because the PPC can issue a POPLA code at ANY time).

namregd wrote: »

The date of this alleged contravention will be key to my defence.

Not really. In fact it's better for you at the moment that it hasn't been stated by PE because it gives you grounds to ask the court to strike the claim out! Other things will be key, the usual defence points will be just as important, and citing other recent PE defeats, getting hold of the transcripts of those cases, getting hold of Parking Prankster's info.

namregd wrote: »

Someone suggested somewhere that I ring the court and state that I haven't received any photographic evidence, but surely that's up to PE? Should I ring PE on the number shown on the Claim Form (under PE's address) and ask for copies? Can anyone think of any reason why this might be a bad idea? I'll simply ask for copies of previous correspondence and the photographic evidence - I won't be discussing the alleged contravention.

Please don't ring up anyone = a pointless waste of time and doesn't prove anything said later on. Just do a defence as described already. PE have left holes in their argument, why are you trying to fill those holes for them? Just point them out in defence to the court, and by a robust letter to PE! Nothing prevents you from writing to PE at the same time and pointing out the flaws in their arguments, the lack of date etc. You can even state that the 'drivers of your car' (third person please, don't ID the driver, how can you possibly know an unidentified date a year ago? I could have been driving your car!) only ever visit that car park to drop off and collect a family member so you are certain this was purely an ANPR error.

Once you read back and research the recent PE cases on pepipoo, you would learn what's needed and you'd know: rattle their cage and bits fall off! Read back at least a dozen pages on pepipoo private parking ticket forum and click on every single PE court claim case.The advice is already there about the key points of defence and the other options that might appear (making an offer, making a BPA complaint, trying to get the case struck out or referred to POPLA instead, etc. Examples galore of 'how it all pans out' are on pepipoo, and most posters never go to a hearing).

namregd wrote: »

Thanks for the help guys

No probs - but I for one, am a lady!

namregd

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No probs - but I for one, am a lady!

Guys includes ladies these days CM!

Thanks for that. I was going to hit them with all the usual stuff as well, but I would like to know when I was meant to have done this thing! And I really, really don't remember seeing any photographic evidence.